Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1999 (5) TMI 118

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... list No. 252/88, dated 6-12-1988 in respect of 22 products classifying them as `other inorganic compound under Heading No. 28.51 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act. On the basis of the test report of product Pyroclean-17 , the Assistant Collector classified the product under sub-heading 3402.90 as cleaning preparations. He also classified other similar products with similar function of same group under sub-heading 3402.90 of CETA. On appeal by them, the Collector (Appeals) under order dated 14-1-1992, confirmed the classification of Pyroclean-17 under sub-heading 3402.90. However, in respect of other products, he ordered that the result of Proclean 17 could not be made applicable to other products and remanded the matter to .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tor did not get the other Pyroclean Range of Products chemically tested does not appear to be factually and wholly correct; that as the Appellants did not annex the list of various products covered by C.L. No. 252/88, he was not in a position to ascertain as to which other products were covered by the said C.L. The Collector (Appeals) did not, however, uphold the direction to classify 36 other Pyroclean Range of products and other similar products of same group and remanded the matter to the Assistant Collector to decide their classification after getting the products chemically tested. He also set aside the order dated 21-10-1993 with the direction that Assistant Collector should verify whether the demand pertained to Pyroclean 17 or other .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... T). He also mentioned that the Collector could not ascertain the products covered by the C.L. because the Annexure to C.L. No. 252/88 seems to have been misplaced; that however, in the personal hearing, it was pointed out specifically that the 7 products did not figure in the Annexure to C.L. No. 252/88; that the Collector could have called for the said Annexure from the Department; that therefore the Assistant Collector s order dated 5-3-1993 was contrary to the directions contained in order dated 14-1-1992. He also contended that there was gross violation of the principles of natural justice as no show cause notice was issued to them in respect of these seven products. The ld. Consultant also mentioned that every product sold under brand .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... emand pertained to Pyroclean or other products of Pyroclean range of products or both and that demand may be reworked in respect of Pyroclean 17 and seven other Pyroclean range of Products. 5. We have considered the submissions of both sides. We observe that the first adjudication order dated 5-8-1991 classifying the products under subheading 3402.90 of CETA was in respect of classification list No. 252/88, dated 6-2-1988. According to the copy of classification list submitted by the Appellants, the C.L. was in respect of 22 products which were described as other inorganic compound . We also observe that in remarks column of C.L. it is mentioned that This Classification list is filed for new products from Sl. No. 215 to 236. This also .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d decide their classification. Instead of complying with the direction, he had decided the classification of seven products which were not mentioned in the classification list. We also find that as no notice was issued to the Appellants about these 7 products, principles of natural justice were not observed in deciding their classification. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order to the extent it relates to the classification of these seven products. As far as product Pryoclean-17 is concerned, the Appellants have not made any averments in the memorandum of Appeal. We also make it clear that the Department is at liberty to decide the classification of these seven products afresh after following the principles of natural justice. As far .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates